[I]t would have been prudent for her to disclose any activity that might conceivably raise questions about her ability to be impartial. Regrettably, it was left to a conservative group, Judicial Watch, to point out her role as a trustee to a foundation that had given grants to a branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, a plaintiff in the case....I don't understand why judges don't steer clear of anything that can be used against them like this. Well, to dredge up yesterday's paper -- the one with my op-ed in it -- I don't understand why judges don't swaddle their opinions -- whether result-oriented or not -- in very professional, neutral-sounding verbiage. Why make it easier for your critics?
Judge Taylor’s role at a grant-making foundation whose list of beneficiaries includes groups that regularly litigate in the courts is still disquieting — and, even worse, it is not all that unusual for a member of the judiciary. The most important lesson here may be the wisdom of re-examining the sort of outside activities that are appropriate for sitting federal judges.
२४ ऑगस्ट, २००६
Why do judges make it easier for their critics?
The NYT has an editorial about the controversy that has boiled up connecting Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to the ACLU, the party she summarily handed a victory to in ACLU v. NSA.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५३ टिप्पण्या:
I see it more as a case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. She knows she's right, thus close reasoning in the opinion isn't important, and the strength of her rightness means that little things like conflicts of interest are simply transcended.
(And so once again, evil genius Karl Rove strikes from behind the scenes. Warning: that man is everywhere.)
Yes, 10 yrs. on the bench is quite enough, then send them packing off to pasture and away from the tax trough to earn their salt in private practice or pine away from the loss of power and authority in their lives. There is nothing inherent in the practice of Law that prevents and protects Judges from becoming corrupt and egomaniacs. Said profession is no more sacrosanct in this respect than that of common shoe cobblers.
I agree that the current constitutional crisis would be better resolved if Judge Taylor had done more swaddling.
Surely, if she had used more neutral language in ruling the NSA progam grossly illegal, the right wouldn't be upset at all.
Surely, if she had used more neutral language in ruling the NSA progam grossly illegal, the right wouldn't be upset at all.
Yes, yes, we'd still complain. But the question is people on the margin, people in the middle, and people who agree with her result, out on the left. I think Balkin's criticism was really the big one, there, since he hates Bush, but even he couldn't in good faith stand behind this opinion. From a PR perspective, having commentators who would otherwise agree with the opinion slam it for shoddy reasoning transforms the impact from "Bush got smacked down by the courts => huge defeat for Bush!" -- what the Democrats would have liked this to be -- into "Activist judges at it again, and this time she didn't even try to hide it!" -- which is the Republican narrative on judges in general, even apart from this particular controversy. It flips it all around.
Yes, Mark, interesting use of language. A "conservative group" for JudicialWatch and a "group that litigates..." for, what, the ACLU? The NYT campaign continues apace.
Ann says: "I don't understand why judges don't steer clear of anything that can be used against them like this."
The reality is that the vast majority of federal judges do steer clear of any situation that might create the appearance of partiality. Judges routinely resign from boards of non-profits or other entities when they take the bench, especially if those entities are engaged at all in or fund litigation as a form of advocacy.
And Ann is using some intentionally loaded language when she asks why judges "don't swaddle their opinions -- whether result-oriented or not -- in very professional, neutral-sounding verbiage." The suggestion that a well-done judicial opinion is just a better cover for the kind of agenda-driven decision making on display in Judge Taylor's opinion is quite unfair. Obviously, judges are appointed as the result of a political process, and all of them are quite likely to have views about the major political issues of the day. But it is wildly inaccurate to suggest that the decision making process in federal court is just an exercise in dressing up the judge's determination to apply his political views to the cases before him, so that an unsuspecting public won't see what the Wizard is really doing behind the curtain. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of federal judges work very hard at applying the law fairly. That becomes hard to do in politically charged cases, and some will always see an agenda driven result no matter what the judge decides. But there is already quite enough cynicism about the judiciary, and nothing good will come from adding to it by suggesting that Judge Taylor's decision was anything like a normal opinion from the federal courts.
Given all the commentary, such as your op ed yesterday, rightly noting the many levels on which Judge Taylor's decision is deeply ironic and very disappointing, it is important to be clear about one fact: Nothing about Judge Taylor's decision, or the way she went about deciding this case, is typical of the work of the federal judiciary.
I'm suspicious that the media's treatment of this ruling is evidence of its liberal bias.
The NYT has published several pieces, including Ms. Althouse's op-ed, which are primarily concerned with the opinion's shortcomings, rather than the import of its findings (i.e. that the government is spying on Americans illegally).
This is especially strange because the quality of her legal reasoning is not relevant to the ruling's chances of surviving appeal.
Finally, accusations of "judicial activism" in this case serve only to eliminate what little meaning remained in that term other than "judicial opinion I don't like."
FISA is a very explicit law. The only way to legally wiretap American citizens is in accordance with its provisions.
The Article II and AUMF arguments are so weak that the DoJ would rather not have to make them, and thus has only argued state secrets.
The opinion might piss people off, and overreach on the 1st and 4th amendment issues, but the decision is a victory for the rule of law.
This is especially strange because the quality of her legal reasoning is not relevant to the ruling's chances of surviving appeal.
But from a PR perspective, it's an own-goal. As a matter of fact, no matter which way she ruled, it's unlikely that it would matter much, legally, because either one side or the other would appeal it, and a superior court would then reach its own conclusions. The only meaningful thing in a lower court opinion, at this stage, is its impact on the public debate.
Rogera, you can spin all day, but as they say, "Judges have been disqualified for much less."
As a practical matter, Ann, the surprising part here is not that the judge didn't do a good job of conforming to the expectations of us legal realists (and us bitter litigators). It's that her clerks didn't. That means either she grabbed this one for herself, unable to contain her Bush Derangement Syndrome, or, perhaps, that her clerks are lousy.
I guess this is a job for Article III Groupie.
Re: "the decision is a victory for the rule of law"
Too bad the rule of law doesn't seem to be one obeyed by terrorists. We must follow Queensbury rules, but they can bite, cut, shoot, kick us in the groin, use human shields, use children as props, and blow us up.
We may be then overtaken by Sharia Law, but at least we obeyed the US laws (that then cease to exist). So while enslaved, at least we'll feel pure.
I say screw it. I'm with Abe Lincoln here. Imprison them until the hostilities are over, deny habeas corpus for suspected terrorists, and take no prisoners (kill them all in the field).
The reason that the black letter of the law must be honored, is that our agreement to abide by the black letters is the only thing that stands between us, and rule governmental fiat, the supposed rule of kings that the judge and so many on the left are swooning over. The firm of Wilson, Ellis, Ellenburg, and Wilson's Cabana Boy has come out strongly in favor of this opinion, which can best be summarized as "I believe the case ought to come out this way, so that's what the ruling is." Once validated, the same "interpretive method" will be used by people on the other side of the political aisle. Just as howling mad sixties radicals stormed government buildings to get their way, so did howling mad Republicans storm election commmission offices in Florida in 2000. If your side introduces a shoddy tactic into public "discourse," and then seeks to legitimize the tactic, you should fully expect it will be used against you by your political enemies in the future. Each mindless endorsement of this judge's technique simply validates and endorses the results-oriented judicial approach. This judge does not even make colorable efforts to hew to the law as it actually exists, instead imnplicitly clinging to an end-justifies-the-means argument. If the end really justifies the means, why not just bust a cap or two on the people you say are endangering the country? That would be the "right thing to do," if the threat to the nation is mortal, would it not? The end result of the ongoing abuse of the text will be more judges of all stripes, especially including the ascendant conservative judges, implementing their personal policy preferences using the same tactics.
And as for electronic surveillance being unconstitutional due to a 1st Amendment chilling effect... well then, so to are all other wiretaps, even those properly granted, since a warrant sworn out under 4th Amendment procedures merely abrogates 4th Amendment rights, not 1st Amendment rights. For the state to abrogate 1st Amendment rights, a hearing of another nature, showing some sort of compelling state interest, would be necessary.
But then, nobody would take this straightforward reading of the opinion seriously, because we all know that the judge didn't really mean what she was saying when she slipped that fig leaf over the opinion, it was just meant as a fig leaf, not as a serious statement of the law...
Pogo -
The NSA can, and should, spy on terrorist communications until the cows come home.
FISA only prevents the surveillance of American citizens who can't even be reasonably suspected of having ties to terrorists. If there were any reason to suspect them, a FISA warrant could be readily obtained.
The courts' record of approval is like 18,000-0-3.
Mark and Mike: I looked it up and found that the NYT was in fact calling Judicial Watch conservative event when they sued over Cheney:
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
May 11, 2005 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Column 5; National Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 859 words
HEADLINE: Appeals Court Backs Cheney In Secrecy Case
BYLINE: By DAVID STOUT
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, May 10
A federal appeals court said on Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney did not have to divulge details about how the White House's energy policies were shaped, ruling in a case that touched on the constitutional separation of powers.
The 8-to-0 decision, handed down months after the lawsuit became an issue in the 2004 election, was a victory for the executive branch in general and the Bush administration in particular.
The ruling, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, upheld the administration argument that it was not obligated to disclose whom it consulted on energy matters early in President Bush's first term and what was said.
The decision could be the last word in a case that reached the Supreme Court last spring, only to be sent back to the lower courts. And it comes as Congress is weighing energy legislation that Mr. Bush says will combine efficiency with environmental protection, and that his critics say is a gift to the energy industry.
The Sierra Club, a liberal environmental group, and Judicial Watch, a conservative legal organization, jointly filed the suit. They contended that officials in the industry were so deeply involved in policy making that they became de facto members of Mr. Cheney's panel, the National Energy Policy Development Group, and therefore that their identities were subject to disclosure under the Federal Advisory Committee Act."
Ann,
It's because they've gotten away with hiding results oriented rulings in legalistic jargon that this judge became so arrogant as to dispense with the formalities. It is results oriented judging that is, itself, the problem here.
Look no further, btw, than law professors who applaud the dressing up of cramped logic so as to accomplish appropriate results than to find the coddlers and appeasors of our judicial overlords.
FISA is a very explicit law. The only way to legally wiretap American citizens is in accordance with its provisions.
Maybe yes, maybe no. It seems to me that a factual defense, on this point, would have to go through the definition given in the FISA statute, covering "electronic surveillance," and would implicate classified information about the structure of the data-gathering program at issue here:
(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
I don't think this provision is at issue, although because the definition of United States person is not restricted to citizens, it's conceivable that it could be, if a surveillance target moves into the US as a permanent resident or somesuch.
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
This one is probably the strongest argument that FISA is implicated. But we don't actually know, I think, because as far as I know, we don't know the details of the programs involved. Interception may be occurring outside the US. Back in the 90's hysteria over Echelon, the theory was that the US was acquiring foreign signals routed through the US, for the use of foreign governments, and foreign governments obliged by capturing US signals abroad, and turning them over to us. For all I know, that may be the case here as well, such that acquisition is not occuring in the US. That information is probably classified.
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or
I don't think this one is at issue. Because my understanding (as always, possibly incorrect) is that we're looking at foreign transmissions.
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.
I don't think this is at issue either, but it might be, depending on what this actually means (because I do not understand it).
I'm not an expert in this field, certainly, but I can read the statute, and see that this is not, as Doyle would have us believe, an open-and-shut issue.
The "reasonable expectation of privacy" language is also a possibly avenue of attack, as (I think) Orin Kerr pointed out -- when you're crossing the border, the government can apparently take your car and disassemble it, looking for contraband, if they feel like it. All the usual privacy concerns seem to dissolve in the border zone.
Personally, I'm puzzled why the NYT allowed our dear professor to use their megaphone to skewer one of their sacred lambs.
Did they realize that defending the decision was impossible? Did they decided to engage in some positive reinforcement of their own, to bring Althouse back to the fold? Did they realize that being a rag for the left is doing nothing good for their circulation?
Whatever the reason, this is a welcome development. I know NYT has posted Althouse op-eds before, but none of those were in such direct opposition to the official editorial position of the NYT.
They are like a child, who will continue to push the envelope until his Daddy tells him "enough!" If Mom or Dad don't stop him, he'll just continue to worsen.
Not to say Judges are childish, but the analogy is apt. The President should simply instruct the appropriate law enforcement officials to ignore orders he disagrees with.
Oh yes. We really want to return to the days of Roosevelt II, and his scheme to transform the court into a rubber stamp for the Presidency. The fact that courts sometimes overreach doesn't justify cutting them out entirely.
Judges should not be activists.
I'm not sure she was even going that far -- I think she was just saying that judges ought to take care in writing their opinions, and conform to the informal opinion-writing standards of their profession.
I read the op-ed as political neutral. Perhaps concern with process over results seems conservative, though I don't see why it should.
a) The "process" of writing this op-ed did not include reading the briefs filed in the case, which are relevant to the ruling.
b) The process Ms. Althouse wanted to see was a grappling with the "serious argument[s]" put forth by the Administration. But of course no arguments were advanced by the DoJ on the merits of the case.
Plus, the arguments they'll eventually trot out (Article II, AUMF) aren't all that "serious" either.
Ann,
On a slightly OT, I think Bruce Hayden deserves a round of applause for his sterling nearly single handed defense over at VC yesterday.
Even if your assertion that the DOJ's brief was weak tea it doesn't mean the Judge can put out weak tea in response.
I believe it in fact requires a weak tea response. In civil cases the judges are not supposed to address arguments that are not put forth.
I'm in love with my Bill of Rights argument:
Look at the 9th (IX) Amendment to the Bill of Rights--- It says you are not supposed to substitute one thing for another.
But evil Judge Diggs-Taylor did exactly that which was supposed to be prohibited: She took away Executive privilege in order to uphold the search and seizure rule.
Completely in violation of Bill of Rights Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."---Amendment IX--Bill of Rights
The American people have a right to Executive privilege under their Chief Executive.
Taylor-Diggs has contrued to deny the people that right.
Bad bad baaaaaad.
Peace, Maxine
On one level, Judge Taylor's ties to that organization that gave the money to the prevailing party in the NSA litigation is not that troubling. Under normal circumstances, according the NYT legal ethicists, she wouldn't get disciplined (if that is even possible with federally appointed and confirmed judges), and she should have just put the parties on notice of this appearance of impropriety.
Of course, cynically, I suggested elsewhere that the reason that she didn't inform the parties of this is that then she would have to refuse a motion to recuse herself in order to keep the case away from a less sympathetic judge (i.e., one not appointed by Carter), esp. given her trying to steal that U. Mich. Affirmative Action case. Sorry, but, as you can tell, that is just snarky on my part.
The problem for the judge though is that this ties in fairly well to Ann's NYT article yesterday. The judge's opinion was intemperate and intensely partisan in tone already. Finding out that she is the secretary and trustee of an organization that routinely contributes to the prevailing party just makes this appearance of impropriety worse.
Finally, as a note to the poster who tried to excuse this because she is one of 50 trustees, let me note that she is also secretary, that the trustees do make all of the contribution decisions, and the fact that the money contributed was for another ACLU cause is irrelevant, since, as they saying goes, money is fungible. What the ACLU didn't have to spend on gay rights because of the contributions, could be spent on the NSA suit.
Atrios and others have made good points about your written commentary as of late.
Your site isn't a democracy; I'm sure this comment will be taken down quickly.
"Would Ann Althouse call this "carelessness," or what would she call it, do you think?"
I'd call it a mistake, and it should have been caught in the editing.
re: snarkalicious
And only now do you hear conservatives complaining.
Not really. As Bruce Hayden points out above, people were complaining about her in the recent Affirmative Action cases, where there were allegations that she improperly manipulated the court assignment process to ensure that the "right" result was reached.
Bullshipper: "Why don’t judges “swaddle their opinions -- whether result-oriented or not -- in very professional, neutral-sounding verbiage. Why make it easier for your critics?” Perhaps just to make it easier, period. Maybe clarity has a place in legal writing as well as –dare I say it?- ass-covering-by- baffling -with-bullshit. After reading far too many of Rehnquist and Thomas’ opinions (one can’t call most of them decisions), I found Judge Taylor’s decision refreshingly clear and concise, qualities which, of course make it easier for her critics to kvetch."
But it doesn't make it easier. It may be easy to see the conclusion when all there is is a conclusion, but that's like turning in your math homework with only the answers. Without the reasoning demonstrated, we're left to guess about what the reasoning was and encouraged to think there wasn't any. Your idea that it's easier can only reflect the idea that a judge just picks outcomes. That's what my op-ed is about: if that is in fact all a judge is doing, we might as well go with the President's conclusion about what the answer is. Your attitude is blindly self-defeating. If you don't see why it is, you need to think more.
Ann Althouse: Without the reasoning demonstrated, we're left to guess about what the reasoning was and encouraged to think there wasn't any.
What if the "math problem" in question isn't as hard as you think it is? This would explain both the correct answer and the absence of more work.
That she was more strident than meticulous also supports the "It's clearly illegal" theory.
"Seven Machos said... I'm seeing way too much of this mentality on the left of "we don't really care about the means, only the end." It's frightening."
Hasn't that been a hallmark of the left since at least Roe v. Wade?
Gee, fellas, do you think this fresh "ends justifying the means" angle could be applied elsewhere in a discussion of warrantless wiretapping to catch terrorists?
Balfegor: Not really.....people were complaining about her in the recent Affirmative Action cases, where there were allegations that she improperly manipulated the court assignment process...
Now this is what I love about the internet. No more monopoly. Is there any chance a person like me, who really doesn't know much about the law, would ever come in contact with information like this? No.
With that said, I do have to give props to the NYT for publishing Ann's editorial. It's not often I give the NYT props.
Doyle, you need to read Sippican Cottage's comment from the last post on this subject, which nicely explains why "wiretapping" is an obfuscation of this matter.
Yow more frothing!
The organization gave 23 million to around 1,000 groups. There's no way she even knew that 45k of that (over several years) was going to the ACLU.
Forgot to mention: that 23mill to 1,000 groups was in 2004 alone.
Doyle asks: What if the "math problem" in question isn't as hard as you think it is? This would explain both the correct answer and the absence of more work.
The problem here is that the decision is not nearly as easy as it may appear at first glance. To get an idea of all the stuff that the judge seemed to ignore, you should read the government's motion and brief to dismiss - that was coincidently denied in the opinion and associated order that have been the object of these discussions (and, thus, were before the Court). I should note that my general feeling reading the government's brief and the judge's opinion together is that after she finished determining that she could proceed despite the State Secret privilege, that she then flat ignored the government's brief thereafter.
For anyone who is interested, I am accumulating relevant information, including links to all the pleadings I have found, the statutes, etc.
i'll be a lot more sympathetic to your posting when i read your blog on the scalia/cheney hunting episode.
i can't imagine why anyone in law wouldn't support the ACLU. It is bipartisan and has a very specific mission.
As a con-law guru one would think that your wisdom for supporting civil liberties would be paramount.
"And you guys accuse Justice Taylor of "judicial activism"?"
Wow, did Stevens finally retire? I must say that Justice Taylor's confirmation hearings were a lot faster than the Alito hearings! Maybe it will be in the morning papers...
Why do judges make it easier for their critics?
Because when you combine enormous power with a complete lack of accountability for bad decisions, arrogance inevitably follows.
Palladian:
I loved your one-line critique of Dave's sentence structure. Like so many others on the left, Dave believes that anger makes an adequate substitute for thought. Judge Taylor's opinion is Exhibit A, but there are so many additional examples.
Le style, c'est l'homme.
OHHH this is such an easy target:
"Seven Machos said...
"i can't imagine why anyone in law wouldn't support the ACLU. It is bipartisan and has a very specific mission."
What percentage of the Board of the ACLU do you think voted for President Bush in 2004? What percentage voted for a single Republican in the last major election? What percentage of financial contributors do you suppose voted for a single Republican in the last major election?"
I gather from your admission that republicans, by in large, do not support the bill of rights and, your opposition to a group that defends individual rights that you concede that Republicans care for neither.
Thank you for making my point.
"I gather from your admission that republicans, by in large, do not support the bill of rights and, your opposition to a group that defends individual rights that you concede that Republicans care for neither."
You're kidding right?
Or can this be played both ways--like if the majority of NRA execs vote Republican, that means Dems are against that part of the Bill of Rights?
I say I support all that is good and right in the world.
I usually vote Republican.
Ergo, all Dems who oppose me are opposed to all that is good and right in the world.
Am I following this?
I gather from your admission that republicans, by in large, do not support the bill of rights
That's an extremely silly way to misread what he said.
You claimed that the ACLU was "bipartisan". 7M was just pointing out that they're not. "Bipartisan" does not, as you seem to think, mean "composed of those political views which you agree with". It means "representing both sides".
As for the notion that they defend "the bill of rights" -- they defend their interpretation of those parts of the bill of rights that they think are important and significant. Not quite the same thing as "defending the bill of rights", as (for example) gun owners well know.
Oh you silly gooses. the ACLU actually does defend the principle first - then the party involved. are liberals against the second amendment? Not at all. We are or at least I am, the dithering with it to fit a "cold dead hands" mentality. The constitution is, above all else, a study in common sense not, as some sillies want to make it, an on/off switch. Because print is black on white doesn't mean your thought process should be.
And while we are at it...there are a number of posts decrying the liberal media "...the left's refusal to admit to the left-slanting bias in the media ..." and some nerd was in wonderment the NYTimes would give Ms. Althouse space to skewer one of their own....
Please stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and getting your talking points on this subject from him. Left-slanting media as you so inaccurately call it is simply a shill rap because "right-slanting" media is frustrated by their second class intellectual and, frankly, honesty status. Do you think that the Washington Times has anything in common with the NYTimes in terms of journalism? It is a pipsqueak paper with a circulation just over 100,000..putting it OUT of the top 100 in the US. It isn't small without reason. It is small by in large because it is so much inferior to the Post.
But let's get on to the real "left-media". What pray tell is the left media? Someone define that please. Your right wing media, lead by the Rush/Sean/Savage crowd dwarfs the alleged "left" in both reach and frequency of message. Rush the blowhard farts unrelenting and highly inaccurate spewey for 3 hours a day and reaches more people each week than the top 200 (yes 200) newspapers in the US "left or right". The conservative media audiences outnumber print and if the "labeling" is evening remotely applicable, the evening newses included by 200%.
Does the so called "left" decry the "right wing media" for the sins of the world? We might and we of course should, but what the "left wing media" moniker really means is a jealousy factor immeasureable.
And to the reasoning and thought processes of lawyers: Get a grip. I repeat my earlier observation. If being a lawyer is such a high and mighty position in life - something of the Olympus of intellectually achievement - the world series and world cup of truth, knowledge and the American way (sans cape) then how there are so many of you? Certainly there can't be THAT many ambulances.
"Oh you silly gooses. the ACLU actually does defend the principle first - then the party involved. are liberals against the second amendment? Not at all. We are or at least I am, the dithering with it to fit a "cold dead hands" mentality. The constitution is, above all else, a study in common sense not, as some sillies want to make it, an on/off switch. Because print is black on white doesn't mean your thought process should be."
Hdhouse, is this meant to make no sense or does it just look that way?
-
Jonah Goldberg has a position on media bias I've come to agree with--it's so patently obvious the media is left leaning that I get bored with even arguing over it.
Every poll shows an overwhelming amount being Democrat. Of the journalism students I met in college, an overwhelming majority of people who went into the field were always Democrat. Of the journalists I've talked to one-on-one, it's always assumed those they work with are Democrats.
And when I get into arguments about this, the examples people on the other side cite always boil down to some radio talk show host with a few hundred thousand listeners or Fox News: a cable news network. (Ok, Limbaugh has more. No, he does single-handedly cancel out everybody else.)
When you're relegated to citing those, as far as I'm concerned you've proved my point. Maybe you cited more--I honestly don't know (like I said-I'm beginning to agree with Goldberg on this; I'm not interested in reading five paragraphs here on this and since your other posts haven't been much more than ad hominems (that means personal attacks) there's not much of a chance anything informative will be in them.
(BTW part 1, I'm much more civil towards people who don't deal in ad hominems-you should try it sometime)
(BTW part 2, the chances you haven't read this post are less than Katie Couric voting Republican so don't bother replying with that)
Life is short and I think taking the time to even write all this is questionable. Anyway, if you've wondering why you're not getting more responses, that's why.
children children children.
an overriding problem with the unlearned rightwing is that they have no patience for facts and frankly if facts bother them, they simply ignore them.
Rush's audience (daily) is approximately the same size as the 3 major news casts combined. Where you think and that is the optimal word here "think" that the nightly news is left wing, may I kindly remind you that they are obligated by law NOT TO EDITORIALIZE otherwise the fairness doctrine and equal time doctrines go into effect. Unlike cable that has no such governance.
And then there is Rush, Sean, Savage, and the host of other lunatics who spout on radio (also unregulated) and instead of a perceived (not real) attack imagined on nightly news, they crapforth (appropos wording) for 3 hours daily...15 hours a week...of incessant stupidity and lies.
They taunt you zealots to defend them with slogans about the liberal media and truly yea i say verily unto you, you have not one single idea or fact to back it up other than some halfass opinionated bilge.
Please don't mess up Althouse's blog with your swill. And it does have nothing to do with her opinion and everything to do with your responses. They are innane, self serving, artifical and downright stupid on face.
Yo Nachos -
Yes we all know that the fairness doctrine was repealed in 1987 (God Reagan certainly had millions of dollars in good reasons to do so) but - and I guess if the only connection you have to television is to flip the clicker - you think that broadcast doesn't fully embrace it to this day stives for acccurate report least the possibly offended party errupts and gives airtime to opposing community views and disparate views and generally anyone or anything of merit least it have issues when licenses come up for renewal.
If the networks didn't still uphold the doctrine as a core responsibility, there would never be a "care to comment" solicitation seeking the view from the other side of the coin.
Obviously you know zip about how the television news process operates, what is news and what is entertainment news and sadly what is just entertainment that the public takes for news.
It is a much deeper issue than the little layer of top soil you plow over and over again.
"children children children.
an overriding problem with the unlearned rightwing is that they have no patience for facts and frankly if facts bother them, they simply ignore them."
House, if you had posted a fact in the previous 80 posts instead of ad homs, I'd bother to read the rest of your comment.
are liberals against the second amendment?
Most of them, yeah.
Let me put it to you simply: if the ACLU read the first amendment as narrowly as it reads the second amendment, nobody would be allowed to give a political speech or publish a book or newspaper without written authorization from the US government.
The ACLU is an ideological organization, sure. But the ideology it promotes is that of the ACLU, not that of the US Constitution. Sometimes the two overlap, other times they don't.
Where you think and that is the optimal word here "think" that the nightly news is left wing, may I kindly remind you that they are obligated by law NOT TO EDITORIALIZE otherwise the fairness doctrine and equal time doctrines go into effect
The fairness doctrine was mostly repealed in 1987 and completely repealed as of 2000.
The equal time rule does not apply to interviews, documentaries, scheduled newscasts, or spontaneous news events. Also, the equal time rule only covers time given to political candidates, not time spent editorializing on behalf of a candidate.
In other words, you're completely wrong and haven't the foggiest idea what the hell you're talking about. There's no legal barrier to any news outlet being entirely partisan.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा